Proof that our overlords think the underclass is stupid: they don't believe those who receive food stamps would not circumvent any control on their benefit use in short order. (despite repeatedly being foiled by the unintended consequences of their ukases)

More skinny rich people than skinny poor. Cheap processed food packs on the pounds.

Really? Ever see any of the emaciated coming out of a whole foods store? The anti-processed food repository of the smug and effete? Learn what processed foods are first before you comment on how they make the poor fat. The poor eat to much and that is a shocker for you I bet.

Oso Negro said..."We do not have poor people in the United States. Real poor people are skinny."

In the United States, the real rich people are skinny.

The real rich people have money to spend on foods that don't fill them up, have the time and incentives to work off their bulges. Incentives such as to show off a slim body that looks good in the thousands dollars outfits.

Frankly, why the hell would those who use food stamps waste on junk food, waste their food stamps and waste their bodies? To look like losers?

Rephrase: It's not fair to restrict people who work at WalMart's food choices.

Proponents might have an argument if no one on food stamps worked, but since Walmart makes up the biggest groups of food stamp recipients in many states, I would say no.

They're already working at Walmart. Exactly how much torture do you want to inflict on them? They should be being paid enough to not qualify for food stamps, but since the US majority, in its wisdom, would like to subsidize Walmart, then as working people, they should be able to eat whatever cheap crap they want that can take their minds off their crappy lives for one second.

I'm guessing Lane also doesn't understand the impulse behind urine testing welfare recepients for drug use either. Why should the ants subsidize a bunch of lazy, obese losers that will tip over obamacare?

SOJO,You may have missed the point. Working people are pissed at the sluggards that squander their (the working people's) taxes on Little Debbies. No one I know of, however conservative, objects to making sure everyone has enough to eat.

Well, Obama care does have a sort of built in relief valve. After people get fat living on welfare and food stamps for a few years they can be denied free medical care based on their non-contribution to society. Just pain medication until death, a sort of dark parallel continuation of the drug culture.

A scene I once witnessed way in the past was someone trying to buy Gatorade with food stamps. Couldn't do that (at least back then), because Gatorade isn't an agricultural product. Chips, candy and desserts are ag products, so they were okay. Don't know if that policy ever changed.

That's right, Ann. Government is a perversion. The more the government owns, the more it controls.

From the crap my kids have to read in their English class, the stupid HOV lanes and expensive HOV only overpasses, Stupid Trolleys in San Jose, Control of 15% of most people's salary for "Social Security," Control of Health Care, Control of states in the way they want to spend their taxpayer's money, etc., etc., etc.

When I was young, they showed us a film on how the young in China were taken from their families early in life and put into "Education Camps." We aren't far from that.

And it's all one world liberalism, anti competition, anti evolutionary Bull Shit. Special interest groups seeking power from the government by prostituting themselves for votes and campaign donations.

It's pretty scary, having this massive, uber state with all that power and control.

Hope it keeps going the way you want it to. It's too big and powerful to stop now. +Pogo

Meth, have you heard that processed foods are full of PUFA'S and Fructose? Do you have any idea of what they do to the way you metabolize fat and sugars?

I doubt you do.

Which foods, wino bug-eyes? OMG, there is fructose in food? WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!! Heaven help all the PUFA eaters out there too. It's the quantity of ingestion. Eat a lot of anything and you are going to have issues, not to mention the combination of either disease like diabetes and/or genetics on how your body processes and metabolizes those foods. Stop making such stupid statements. Believe me, I know more about this than you ever could.

"Proof that our overlords think the underclass is stupid: they don't believe those who receive food stamps would not circumvent any control on their benefit use in short order. (despite repeatedly being foiled by the unintended consequences of their ukases)"

To avoid corruption, and lifelong dependence, of both government and the beneficiary, they need to move away from the welfare model, and focus on short-term, accountable rehabilitation. Better yet, the government should recuse itself from this enterprise. The nature of proximate disparity engenders disinterest and corruption. A centralized model of governance is poorly suited and ineffecient to help its intended beneficiaries.

It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress.

Give me a break on the comment that Walmart doesn't pay enough and that's why their employees are on food stamps. I worked there and prior to obamacare their pay and benefits were better than most retail. If their employees are on food stamps, it's because those employees make crappy life choices.You can also 'buy' $125 wedding cakes with food stamps.

Which provides more calories, which provides more basic nutrients? Tough to say. White rice is really calorie-intensive, but a pure diet of it will leave you as dead as a pure diet of cheetohs, and maybe sooner.

But the rice will cost the government less money. So guess which one the government promotes as the moral choice?

I repeat: This is a nutrition program, or so the taxpayers who fund it are told.

Dagnabit...a program that isn't what taxpayers are told it will be ... unheard of ... oh, wait, is that like a "penalty" that is really a "tax" even though written in very plain English as "penalty" are just as clearly cited as due & payable for NON-performance?

Probably the most cynical argument against banning junk food from SNAP is that it would “stigmatize” the poor by making them conspicuous at the grocery store. Since when is it humiliating to take only healthful food through a checkout line?

Can he really be that much a dilettante? No, "they" presume the recipients are either ignorant or foolish enough to think it is stigmatization. "Their" proof? They got elected.

Oh, and "junk" food is merely part of the problem in urban environments...selling usage or stamps for cash to buy dope and/or booze or 40 ouncers is another significant part. No urban crack head would satisfied otherwise.

The main insight of Gary Taube's books is not "don't eat carbs." It's the incredibly low quality of the science on which our "knowledge" of science and nutrition is based. It's no coincidence that so much oppressive government policy is based on bad science like this and macroeconomics and weak science like environmental science. The softer a science the more amenable to confirmation bias (for which there IS plenty of verifiable, reproducible scientific evidence.)

"Anyone who's ever stood in the checkout line at a Wal-Mart has seen EBT's squandered on mounds of junk food.Working people see this and, yes, they're pissed."

I'm a working person and I'm not pissed. Why should I care what kind of food people buy with their food stamps? Heck, people fortunate enough to have jobs and income and who can buy their own food also buy junk food. This is the American Diet!

If food stamp recipients don't like the restrictions, they are free to not accept them. Quite frankly, when you're living off of moneys extorted from responsible, productive, taxpayers you should be grateful and gracious to them and accept any guidelines that they require. The crime here is that thee aren't any significant responsibilities attached to public assistance. After all, this assistance is not charity given by the taxpayers, we are forced to participate in funding these giveaways.

Of course the government gets to call the shots because they are providing the money to the people getting the EBT cards. But WE are providing the money to the government, and WE should tell the bureaucrats to shut their pie holes and mind their own business - just for practice.

You see, I agree with this. It's the very basis of why I consider myself a political conservative to begin with: If you want government's intervention, then you play by government's rules. And there's little stronger an argument for limited government than having to play by the rules of an overgrown bureaucracy who's internal motivations will (not may) be far different and possibly in conflict with yours as an individual.

Robert, I saw a real interesting column from Megan McArdle on that whole thing. The theory was that the Baker's union knew that the Teamsters had a deal that would ruin the company, so they had no incentive to bargain. Apparently their hope was that in bankruptcy, the Teamsters deal would get shot down and they'd at least have a shot at something post bankruptcy. Couldn't find it quickly on Google.

"Remember the horrible murders in 1978 of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk? At the killer's trial, his lawyer argued for leniency on the grounds that his client subsisted on a steady diet of junk food, which had addled his brain. This claim entered the annals of American jurisprudence as the "Twinkie Defense."

If the author can't even describe the "Twinkie Defense" correctly, why should I believe anything he says about the Hostess bankruptcy?

So Bloomberg is a communist dictator for banning huge sugary sodas but the federal government should tell people what to eat? And also the government shouldn't tell you what kind of light bulbs you can buy.

One will find arguments from across the political spectrum about not just the facts of the matter but about how to interpret those facts. The salient point is that the bakers union had made significant salary and benefits concessions previously, when Hostess went filed bankruptcy the first time.

Here's the relevant passage from the column I linked to:

"The true perfidy in this drama is not in the union, but inside Ripplewood's towering castle of high finance in New York City. After buying Hostess in a bankruptcy sale, these equity hucksters proceeded to feather their own nests, rather than modernize Hostess's equipment and upgrade its products, as the unions had urged. For starters, these profiteers piled an unbearable debt load of $860 million on Hostess, thus diverting its revenues into nonproductive interest payments made to rich, absentee speculators. Also, they siphoned millions of dollars out of Hostess directly into their corporate pockets by charging "consulting and management fees" that did nothing to improve the snack-makers financial health.

"But it was not until this year that their rank managerial incompetence and raw ethical depravity fully surfaced. While the Ripplewood honchos in charge of Hostess were demanding a new round of deep cuts in worker's pay, health care, and pensions, they quietly jacked up their own pay. By a lot! The CEO's paycheck, for example, rocketed from $750,000 a year to $2.5 million."

Hmmm...isn't that a bit much, asking the bakers to take another cut in pay while maxing out their own compensation?

It's obvious they were going to kill Hostess and their intent was to get the most out of it for their own profit while they could.

Although I tend to agree that the Gov't shouldn't mess around with meal planning even when it is providing the money for the meal, I note there is a wide gulf between restricting the use of government funds for things that are mostly beneficial and restricting the choices of people who wish to spend their own money.

Management can certainly ruin a company and has before, but so have unions many times. The question you need to ask yourself is: why are you only willing to be honest about the management mistakes and willing to have the management removed?

I think it is pretty obvious the union is most responsible for the Hostess demise. Management can make serious mistakes, but they can't take enough funds out to have that kind of impact on a large company.

The unions have ridiculous rules and demands that make their companies weak and the employees lazy and greedy. That's where the real money is lost, and who pays for it? We do, in higher prices and poor service. Look at any government service to see how it works. Is that management failure making those organizations so bad, and so expensive? They could never compete against a nonunion organization. Let McDonald's run the DMV and you would get your business done in the drive through while getting a meal at a fraction of the time and money spent now.

Which provides more calories, which provides more basic nutrients? Tough to say. White rice is really calorie-intensive, but a pure diet of it will leave you as dead as a pure diet of cheetohs, and maybe sooner."

Both are far from complete nutrition, and therefore (by themselves) cannot support life.

But a 12 oz bag of Cheetos is 1,800 calories and to get that many calories from plain, boiled white rice you'd have to eat three pounds of it. Which you're just not going to do, mindlessly, while watching TV.

And, really, the rice will not only cost the government less-- it will cost you less too.

The salient point is that the bakers union had made significant salary and benefits concessions previously, when Hostess went filed bankruptcy the first time.

That is the same old tired "union vs. management" paradigm that is useful only for those who can't see beyond it. The reason I brought up the article is that it looks at it not from that perspective, but another, fresher one. I thought it was interesting. The fact is that the bakers had made concessions, but the teamsters had not.

In this telling, the teamsters had an unreasonably sweet deal, one that was killing the company. And the bakers declined to take cuts in order to keep the teamsters sugared up. They were betting that whoever bought the company would still need the bakers, but not the insane distribution contracts that the teamsters had enjoyed for years.

I won't say it's right or not, but it is plausible and more interesting than anything else I've read on the subject.

"It's obvious they were going to kill Hostess and their intent was to get the most out of it for their own profit while they could."

If the investors run the company into the ground, that's their right - they own it. If the union wants a company, they can buy one. Both sides did what they had a right to do. You are not guaranteed a win every time. Owners don't try to cash out of a promising, competitive and profitable company. They can fire the management for failing at that, but not the union for ruining it. Cashing out a business is what you do when you can't fire people you should. It has happened a thousand times in the U.S., and it's why so few are unionized here today. It's bad business.

For starters, these profiteers piled an unbearable debt load of $860 million on Hostess, thus diverting its revenues into nonproductive interest payments made to rich, absentee speculators. Also, they siphoned millions of dollars out of Hostess directly into their corporate pockets by charging "consulting and management fees" that did nothing to improve the snack-makers financial health.

Shareholders can pay management what they want. At least they have a vested interest in financial performance.

If you want to look at some truly stunning compensation packages for people who are completely divorced from the reality of actual results, let's start examining some NGOs. There's massive wealth to be garnered in the world of non-profits. Lot's of great fundraising parties, too!

Hostess had an unbearable debt load because investors loaned it money. They loaned it money to rescue it from bankruptcy. They failed.

The unions aren't necessarily the villains. Bad management is equally to blame (not least for creating a huge pension burden). But the idea that the real villains are bilked investors marks your source as nothing more than comic posturing.

This is the unabashed mantra of, alleged, progressives. Of course, these low intelligence voters are also those whom need to be rescued repeatedly. They are so low intelligence they don't see the consequences as they live their entire lives in crime ridden squalor.

You'll never get votes that way.

No, I won't. But it doesn't matter, because when the "shtf" these folks will be the first to succumb . There won't be anyone to rescue them and those whom have prepared won't be inclined to "share". The government may support their ignorance and stupidity, temporarily, nature, however, is a much harsher and unforgiving mistress.

" Michelle Obama was right! " Meh, critique from someone who was and is afforded opportunities unique and unavailable anywhere else in the world. Opportunities of which she availed herself, and continues to do so, yet is so ignorant and unappreciative of said opportunities and of those who provided them ; her opinions are of no value and the moniker applied to her "Moochell" is only too accurate and deserved. As well, her husband. Would that they could understand that. Unfortunately progressives tend to blind in that regard.

PUFAs are bad for you because, the problem is that oxidised PUFAs form small, dense LDL, which more readily gets into the walls of inflamed arteries to form plaques that does healthy LDL, which is large and fluffy. When you eat PUFAs as opposed to saturated fat, that's what you end up with. Ask for Particle Size Testing, the next time you have a Lipid Panel drawn.

For starters, these profiteers piled an unbearable debt load of $860 million on Hostess, thus diverting its revenues into nonproductive interest payments made to rich, absentee speculators.

Whenever you read the term "speculator" in an economic context the correct interpretation is "this is a political screed appealing to economic illiterates". It's no surprise garage and Cook find such idiocy compelling.

Substitute "Jew" for "speculator" if you want to understand where the charge comes from.

Yeh - most of us recognize that two of the three were private individuals spending their own money, and the third one was them spending government supplied monies. And, that is part of the problem we see with progressives, that they seem so happy doing just that - control how we spend our own hard earned money, but then try to protect the takers from government supervision.

My guess is that Freder is probably one of the few here who really may think that those on food stamps here should have the dignity of spending the money exactly how they want to, at least when it comes to buying food. (FF - not sure of your actual personal beliefs here, just stereotyping you as the typical liberal/progressive here).

What we really come down to is our views on government spending and taxation. Is the money being spent on food stamps our money? Or is it the governments? Most of us here likely believe that it is our money being taken from us (by force) by the government and spent to take care of those who can't, or very often, won't take care of themselves. Few begrudge those who can't work through no fault of their own. The problem is the vast number who could, but won't. Esp., yes, the single mothers who start having kids without a husband, often with multiple males, for the benefits. It doesn't help that the takers were mobilized by the Dems so effectively to win this last election by promises of even more largess at the expense of the makers, those who do work hard for their money, taken to support the takers, the leech class. The fact that so few were troubled by "ObamaPhones", where the Obama people took credit for giving free cell phones to so many of these people is a bit scary, paid for by, of course, the rest of us, with that surcharge on all of our phone bills (and - for me it was quite the surprise that my Vonage bill is almost double that quoted thanks to all these government mandated surcharges).

" Don't you ever recognize your vast hypocrisy? " What hypocrisy ? There isn't any. If I want to spend my money on twinkies, or Tastykakes my preference, or on incandescent light bulbs that's my business and my choice. If you're living off of my dollar, extorted from me, then I get to tell you how that dollar must be spent. If you find that offensive or unacceptable, try something new and exciting...... pay your own way.This is the greatest danger from obamacare. When the government provides your healthcare, everything becomes a healthcare issue , everything. Nanny Bloomberg is just the most obvious first indication of where the "progressives" want their socialist proclivities to go.

"Cook, I'm willing to accept that management has ruined some companies, but in your opinion has a union ever done so, or are union bosses the salt of the earth?"

I would certainly not say unions are problem-free or paragons of human virtue. As with any organization of human beings, they can become tools for the ambitious to aggrandize their own power and wealth, or can be hurt by corruption, poor management and bad decisions.

However, unions do provide workers some degree of bargaining power when determining compensation and working conditions, and so, with their flaws, on balance they have been and are positive for working people.

I don't know that a union has never caused the failure of a company, but assuming it has happened, it has been the exception, the rare case, and not the rule.

That said, I am still a bit ambivalent about this whole thing, maybe because it has been going on, at some level, for about as long as I can remember. Remember 40 years ago being scandalized that people would show up in fancy new cars to buy expensive food, while those of us earning the money to pay for that would drive up in old beater vehicles. Nothing much has changed, except that the "poor", regardless of why they are poor, now get other freebies from the rest of us too - cell phones, apartments, utilities, health care, etc.

I am though a bit ambivalent about this whole debate. On the one hand, sure, since they are taking government handouts, paid for by those of us working for a living, then they should not be surprised or offended when there are strings attached, and may even need some nudging to not waste it all. But, buying fattening food is typically much cheaper than buying good food, and so maybe we can keep the cost of supporting them down by letting them eat whatever they want, and obesity may be a good way of quickly identifying the makers from the takers. Tatoos on the latter might be better, but there are some civil liberties issues there that not even I am will to take on.

I do think that the next step probably should be photographs on EBT cards. Or, at least a positive requirement that names of the cards be matched to photos somehow. There is rampant fraud going on right now with the food stamp program, with a lot of people trading their benefits for alcohol, tobacco, and drugs, and making this harder might make the program more patitable for the rest of us. And, even if not, the embarassment of having to show your ID every time you bought food using it it might somewhat reduce the number on foodstamps.

Still, I am torn between the idea that allowing them to pick cheap foods might reduce the cost of the program and the idea that much of what they want to buy is bad for them, and they shouldn't be surprised when the government has strings attached to our largess.

"On the one hand, sure, since they are taking government handouts, paid for by those of us working for a living...."

Do you not assume many, or perhaps even most of them once worked themselves and are thus just getting back some of what they have already paid in, and that many may one day work again and resume paying taxes that will go toward others?

We all pay in when we are working and able and help is available to all of us when needed.

However, unions do provide workers some degree of bargaining power when determining compensation and working conditions, and so, with their flaws, on balance they have been and are positive for working people.

I don't know that a union has never caused the failure of a company, but assuming it has happened, it has been the exception, the rare case, and not the rule.

Not sure where you are coming from here. But, I think a lot of us can point to a number of companies driven into the ground by their unions, starting with GM and Chrysler, but also including a lot of our old steel companies, and including now Hostess. And, let us not forget our government employee unions, many of which seem bound and determined to drive their employers into bankruptcy as quickly as they can through their union mandated pension and benefit requirements.

In the 21st Century, your defense of unions is sounding less and less credible. They are a reminent of the industrial environment of the late 19th and early 20th Century, when they did serve a good and noble service. But, we have long moved away from the types of businesses where they provided more benefit to society than cost.

Do you not assume many, or perhaps even most of them once worked themselves and are thus just getting back some of what they have already paid in, and that many may one day work again and resume paying taxes that will go toward others?

Sure, some. But there is a entire dependency class out there that you are seemingly trying to ignore. Remember the makers and the takers in the last election? We have a lot of people who manufactured disabilities to get early SS during the extended Obama Recession. They won't work again. And, then there are all the single mothers who start having kids young out of wedlock to "get their own check".

As I pointed out in my previous post, no one begrudges those who, through no fault of their own, are in a dependency situation. Who have worked hard (and even some who haven't because they couldn't), and now find themselves in need. But what is begrudged by those paying for the largess are the many millions who make little if any effort to support themselves, the dependency class. And, compounding this, so many of these takers were recruited by Obama and the Dems this last election to further their ability to give away even more free stuff to those with no interest or intention of working.

Robert Cook said..."Cook, I'm willing to accept that management has ruined some companies, but in your opinion has a union ever done so, or are union bosses the salt of the earth?"

I would certainly not say unions are problem-free or paragons of human virtue. As with any organization of human beings, they can become tools for the ambitious to aggrandize their own power and wealth, or can be hurt by corruption, poor management and bad decisions.

However, unions do provide workers some degree of bargaining power when determining compensation and working conditions, and so, with their flaws, on balance they have been and are positive for working people.

I don't know that a union has never caused the failure of a company, but assuming it has happened, it has been the exception, the rare case, and not the rule.

First of all GM and Chrysler come to mind.Unions are corporations. Unions do what's best for the union executives, not the rank and file.Unions are also about people control. No one will look out for your benefit better than you can.

"I don't know that a union has never caused the failure of a company, but assuming it has happened, it has been the exception, the rare case, and not the rule."

Then I can only assume you know nothing about the subject, and should get yourself informed. It's impossible to both be informed on the subject and have your opinion, unless the truth just doesn't affect your opinion. It's clear that when "informing" yourself, you systematically exclude inconvenient truth until you find what you are looking for.

Inga said...Free radicals and why you want to avoid them as much as a human can. Hint, rancid PUFAs.

Like "good witches" and "bad witches" there are different types of radicals. Some diradicals like O2 are as unavoidable as death. Persistent radicals are thought to be the worst, but others, like vitamin B12, are quite useful. For example, they mediate the conversion of RNA monomers into DNA monomers and host of metabolic processes.

Rusty, I didn't give it to them - it was taken by threat of incarceration.

I'm inclined to bitch about it even if they are buying good stuff. They should be trying to give me something back for it, or be trying to get off assistance. Otherwise it's simple theft. I will bitch about being robbed, by fat drug addicted welfare breeders, and anyone who doesn't is a little sick. Why would anyone want to encourage that? It's irresponsible and cruel to let it continue. These are human beings being ruined by the millions. How can that be OK?

Ah, Bitchtits The Uneducated once again coming in to make up shit about how wealthy and successful he is.

So successful that his marriage failed and he never made it past high school!

Really Jay, you should feel such envy at the wonderful life that tubby has made up for himself on the internet. I wonder if he believes it in his fat head as well? Leftists are good at constructing delusional realities.

Kind of sad that even in his internet fantasies he broadcasts that he is overweight, that his wife left him, and that he was too stupid to go to college.

But what is the quality of your life while living? Isn't it better to be healthy and fit and able to do all the great stuff humans can do? Or is it better to sit on the couch eating Cheetos, waiting for death?

If kids and adults weren't getting Metabolic Stndrome and the "goodies" that comes with it, in record numbers, then I'd say, have at it eat junk till ya pop!

Meth, you reveal your utter stupidity. You most certainly don't know a thing about nutrition, that is exceedingly evident.

Also you are a loon.

Really? How? The only thing exceedingly evident, wino, is that your attempt at throwing around the word Fructose (sugar) and the acronym for Polyunsaturated fatty acids as a means to create some fake hysteria about them only illuminates the utter vacuousness that is you. Stick to the fermented grape juice, that's what you know best. Talking to you is like talking to a wall of foam, white, dense, and crumbly.

Sure, but spending your days stressing about what you eat, rather than enjoying food is not a quality life. I feel likewise about working out. I would bet that on one's deathbed you would not wish you had spent more time working out, and would regret avoiding that delicious food year after year.

Junk food and working out are both in my opinion bad choices. You should eat good delicious food, and exercise by doing fun and rewarding activities. So pretty much steak and sex 24/7.

When did polyunsaturatedd fatty acids (the main fat in fish) and fructose (the ONLY sugar in fruit) become bad for you? You nanny dietary wacko's need to huddle up and get your story straight.

Only when Nurse nutritionist extraordinaire bug-eyed wino says they are bad for you because her mere utterance that it's bad makes it so. Fear the sugar, it's EEEE-VIL. Look out for thatfatty acid, it's gonna getcha!!! ROFL!!!

Food menus should be under a US Dept of Meddling Assholes with total authority to raid homes using SWAT teams if any paper work is not filled timely or the re-cycling industrial complex is messed with.

That's what the DC guys seriously believe in... i.e., their own prosperity.

Bitchtits the Uneducated said... "Just remember, pretend internet lawyer, you follow me around. And never the other way around."

So since everything I said is true, and you are unable to refute any of those fact about your pathetic life, you retort with the inane statement above.

Well played fatty, if you had went to college, I'm sure you would have been captain of the debate team. Stunning rebuttle.

The truly needy should be given physical food items, and should not get any say in what those items are outside of food allergies or perhaps relgious dietary restrictions. The poor should not all be as fat as Garage Mahal in this country, on the taxpayers dime.

"Mr. Cook, any article that uses the word 'profiteers' without busting out in laughter is delusional."

"Delusional" not at all, but...perhaps you have a point. A better term for the management scum who killed Hostess would have been "parasites."

Be that as it may, "profiteers" is certainly accurate.

All the while you completely ignore the bakers union failing to accept the deal presented to them while all the other unions for hostess accepted it. Don't pile this shit on the feet of the executives. Would this discussion be happening now if that was so? Dare I say, that decades of junk food science (see what I did there?) was a massive contributor to the downfall of Hostess too, but hey, why would you ever not think of that since you dusted off Das Kapital lexicon.

Considering that I haven't had a twinkie since I was a kid, I don't think that's an issue, wino. But please, speculate more. You do that really well, as well as regurgitating wiki's on nutrition. Yeah, that really gives you street cred. I'm sure all the poor are heeding your stylistic warnings of the dangers of government sanction money for them to buy the food you don't want them to because after all, who wants the unhealthy poor when the golden opportunity exists to have a healthy poor instead? Please, continue to laugh at your own self created ironies. I always enjoy watching you go on one of your many, "Hey guys look at me thread crap pointless and useless shit to you in another thread while I vacillate ad nauseum" kicks.

You always side on quantity over quality, wino. And it shows. Drink up.

The children of the very poor learn one lesson and learn it endlessly: Get your gratification now or not at all...Nancy Reagan was relentlessly mocked for her "just say no" program. If it's that impossible to get teenagers to say no to sex and drugs, then lots of luck with ten year olds and twinkies.

garage mahal said... Is it your position that he should just walk away and not pay attention to this? While it was happening? Seriously

Of course not. I've heard about ten different versions of events on Benghazi though, and I'm not sure what your version is.

He was there, he wasn't there, he was there but was just watching, he was there and watching and decided to do nothing, he was there watching and decided to do nothing because he loves his Muslim brothers, he was there but insufficiently emotionally attached, he was there but wasn't really there because he was too tired, he wasn't there period because he went off to Las Vegas fundraising, etc etc etc

garage mahal said... And yet I happen to know as a fact that you yourself are fat!

Why the self-loathing, garage?

I'm 5'11" 220lbs, is that "fat" fat? No where near as fat as Limbaugh in any case.

The question is why you think a whacked out conspiracy theorist like Limbaugh is worthwhile for your readers. Wait, nevermind. 8/25/12, 10:37 AM

Uneducated!

Pretty self explanatory from your writing, but if you want to claim that you went to college now, I would be happy to go back and pull your admitting that high school was as far as you made it educationally too.

Fat people rarely live long enough to suffer senile dementia. One year of nursing home care is more expensive than a lifetime of twinkies. In the end, junk food may prove to be the most humane way of rationing our lives on earth.

Unlike mouthy cunts like Inga, I don't give out personally identifiable information on the internet.

And if you had any education at all, you would know that divulging information like that would be a gross violation of attorney-client privilege.

I see that since you know that I am right, that you are a fat loser with a failed marriage who never went to college, and that you have admitted such on this very blog, you are attempting to change the subject. No chance, lardass.

Again, you said "It isn't true."

I ask you which of these three things is not true.

1. That you are divorced.2. That you weigh/weighed 220 lbs.3. That you did not go to college.

Of course not just to tell you that you are fat bitchtits, but also to tell you that you are a failure as a husband and in education. Also for the benefit of those on the Althouse blog who may not know these important facts.

And the billable hour is so 10 years ago, FYI.

Your repeated lack of denial will be put into evidence as an admission that your assertion that "It isn't true" was just more of your bullshit. Which readers here should take into account when you are lying and spouting bullshit on other topics. Consider this some pro bono service to the readership of this blog. Civic-minded individual that I am.

It is utterly shocking. I know this as fact because I have been among them and observed carefully and spoken directly.

This whole conversation is mostly about them and not about me. I fell separate from this conversation somehow. This public charity is on top of my own charity. As yours is too. So the discussion would be my tiny portion of public on top of how I manage charity otherwise.

The problem I have is public charity parlayed to Party advantage, and that is the motive I sense whenever Democrats discuss public charity.

If you were a reasonable person, which everyone here is, then you would want to support poor people buying foodstuffs to help them immediately. Because I'm telling you, being hungry hurts and I know that feeling very well too. I feel it often, and I'll bet you $10.00 that you don't feel it often, and I'll bet you $10,000 you don't feel it as often as I do, becasue I'm a bit of a freak. I'm the scrawniest man on Earth who's still hot. I meant to say still alive.

*sticks out tongue*

But if you were to then say, "go forth and buy a wholesome potato (which is a carbohydrate starch) and be sure to accompany that with a fat to slow the processing of the starch into sugars (which are either burned immediately or readily stored, and not so much passed, that is evacuated, that is pooped) and be certain to have a wholesome complete protein with that.

They would not know what to do with a real potato. Honestly. Or consider it too much work, or unimaginative, or not tasty, or not enough fun to eat. Or consider it something that goes into something else like stew. Instead, they would choose for processed frozen potato for fries and hashed browns, much more expensive but also immediately satisfying, potato flakes for mashed potato because that's what they've seen, processed potato chips instead of making their own from a single potato because the thought hasn't occurred that they could do it as well.

I take as fact, given a choice of free food arrayed right before them, 100% of poor people on assistance will choose glazed fluffy cinnamon rolls over artisan sourdough bread 100% of the time so that it will sit there forlornly unchosen when offered in piles for free.

And if you set up full tables of straight up junk food that's past its date or approaching it and so offered for free, and another table of straight up hard core basic groceries, they will fill their carts with junk food and tv dinners exclusively and pass on things like cheese they don't recognize, vegetables that need to be washed, cut and cooked.

And this is where M. Obama might be able to reach some people that would never listen to guy like me.

That other day at Arby's I knew I was making a poor food choice, I went there on porpoise to try out the new Ruben that's advertised, to see for myself what the dealio is, and I was starving too, I cannot overemphasize that, but the bum who popped up does not know he's bumming at a bad food choice location, a much better sandwich and value is available right around the corner. (maybe a good bumming location but a poor food location) But honestly, human to human, who am I to say in that starving situation, take this handout but spend it elsewhere.

This whole city is set up to help them, but I see that they cannot abide by the rules that must be and that's why they slipped through the cracks. And I already know, that whatever I give them directly will be spent poorly. It is axiomatic, so here, go stave your hunger, if you're hungry as me, buy your cigarettes, and your little bottle of booze too.

GM and Chrysler's problems were the fault of poor GM and Chrysler management.

It's true management wasn't able to save these companies - GM will have another bailout or bankrupcy before the decade is out. But the obstacles they must overcome are protected by unions. Cook apparently believes the existence of management absolves everyone else of blame. What a childish response.

GM and Chrysler's problems were the fault of poor GM and Chrysler management.

Cook, how DO you manage to self-define confirmation bias so completely?

You utter a half truth and actually avoid the whole truth. Yes, GM and Chrysler management went to shit the minute they made short sighted bean counters CEO's...most egregiously at Chrysler.

The other half of the story is that the UAW did NOT represent its workers collectively [for their collective benefit], nor did it enforce the negotiated contracts for their own work rules. The most egregious violation was attendance..e.g., the lack thereof.

The result was shut down, or 80% reduction, of plant after plant that had to keep an extra 25% plus personnel hired just to assure a maybe 95% productive attendance.

The whole story is both the UAW and management wrecked the U S auto industry. In essence they colluded...and worse, ignored their competition jointly. Don't believe me...do some research on GM's Fisher Body Division, just about everywhere.

When you set out to analyze business performance, humbly suggest you pick an industry you at least know something about...or are not in denial about, or both.

But what is the quality of your life while living? Isn't it better to be healthy and fit and able to do all the great stuff humans can do? Or is it better to sit on the couch eating Cheetos, waiting for death?